Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On This Day After New Hampshire
From my inbox:
For two years on Ricochet’s flagship podcast, you guys keep me optimistic. “All the talented governors who skipped 2012 are going to get in this thing. Some fresh new senators will keep the early debates lively before stepping back to wait their turn later.”
Now we see a talented bumper crop of GOP governors gets blown up by THE DONALD while the two fast talking senators sparked a war of all against all underneath him.
Draft Mitch Daniels.
If only.
Published in General
I must admit I dont really love any of these candidates so I dont know if I’m overly biased. Although I will say I’m not really a fan of Trump so maybe a tad biased.
As far as Trump, still not sure what to think. His fav/unfav ratings among Repubs still seem kinda stuck in a bad place…. isnt he near 50% unfavorable among just Republicans let alone nationally? His huge victory was impressive but even then he only scored 30 something % of the vote. I feel as though he is capturing a much higher % of his supporters than anyone else. But I also think based on those unfavorability numbers he is much closer to his ceiling than anyone else as well. Obviously he is still benefiting from a crowded field. Had Iowa been a 3 or even 2 man race, I think he finishes last and perhaps by a fair margin. Not that he needs a ton of help but Christie and Carly leaving so early doesnt help him. If Jeb and Kasich were to bail shortly thereafter, a lot of their votes would start heading towards Cruz and Rubio in my opinion. The longer they stick around the better. Trump needs to capture as many delegates as he can before the rest of the field coalesces. And hopefully for him, it’ll be too late when it does.
As far Rubio, I’m still surprised his slip up was as bad as it was. How could he survive immigration but be taken out by talking points? Seems ludicrous. I could be wrong but I think a lot of people need him to fail. He is the only “establishment” that could threaten Trump and Cruz and the rest of the establishment wants to be him. Immigration didnt stop him and attacks on his youth/lack of leadership didnt stick either. So I think supporters of the other candidates were desperately looking for something to cling to and talked this up for all it was worth for 3 straight days. And it seemed to work. But doesnt look like it was a knockout. If he has a good debate Sat and scores well in SC, it’ll be a 3 man race once again.
I was surprised Cruz did okay in NH once I realized how little he had spent up there. Moving back to evangelical country, I would have to think this would be his opportunity to take control as the favorite. If not, it’ll be Trump’s to lose.
I’ve got a really good friend who was up in NH working for the Jeb campaign. She sure is excited and keeps telling me the folks on the ground in SC think we’re in for a big surprise. But bless her heart, I think Jeb is dead. Spends $34M more in NH than Cruz and still loses? Enough said. No chance he can beat Cruz let along Trump. He is done.
And he was easily reelected. But I was referring to Reagan, whose electoral performance is still unmatched by anyone with similarly conservative views.
When did enforcing existing immigration law become anti-conservative?
It is important to remember almost 90% of Republicans did not vote for Bush.
Y’know, I wonder if the incessant trashing of Trump by the GOPe and members of the conservative commentariat may not have something to do with that.
OK, Trump’s not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE™. In fact he’s not any kind of conservative. Personally I don’t like him or the jet he rode in on.
I question the wisdom of the hair-on-fire, unshirted rage against Trump, and his supporters, by conservative “thought leaders” if, as appears there is an increasing possibility, Trump turns out to be the nominee. And even if he isn’t, the votes of his supporters are going to be critical to the goal of (as Ricochetti have probably already become very weary of my saying) keeping the keys of the White House out of the hands of the Clinton Crime Family.
When it was accompanied with bizarre notions of forcing Mexico to pay for a wall and banning entry to all Muslims.
Are we still on the “if you are not for Trump you must want Bush” nonsense?
This is not suicide. This is homicide. We intend to electorally murder the problem. This was the GOP’s last chance to represent us. It doesn’t, and we will not acquiesce to its big-government, pro-amnesty, death-to-America habits.
I get that you disagree. You insist on framing things your way so that you get to dismiss a CLEARLY serious political force as “not rational”. Good luck with that.
Trigger warning! Fainting couches, everybody:
Shall I mischaracterize your position at will, Royalist? Collaborationist? Crypto-amnestito? Crony statist? Your hunger for the status quo and your backhanded dismissal of improvement mark you as a mere shill for the GOP, whatever they want, and not a serious contributor to the discussion. I mean, there’s no rational explanation for the electoral suicide you espouse by ignoring the largest, most energized segment of the party, right?
You are looking only at the symptom. Apply this level of thought to the cause: the momentum draining from the GOP. These things become feedback loops, and the GOP has lost its mojo.
Now I know there is a strain of establishmentarians who like to say silly things like “there is no establishment, can you point to it, where do they meet” etc, but the fact is the GOP went to war against the base, and is now of course in a disastrous spot.
Why — that wasn’t rational.
Who knew the base was pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax hike, pro-single payer, anti-private property, pro-Clinton, & anti-W?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Who knew the GOP was pro-amnesty, pro-spending, pro-surrender, anti-responsibility, pro-Obama, and anti-Reagan? Tomayto/tomahto, I guess eh?
The current GOP Congress has cut spending the last 3 years and has the only viable plan to reform entitlements, virtually every GOP candidate and leader has opposed Obama’s surrender first foreign policy, as well as the overwhelming majority of his proposals. They do oppose Reagan on one issue though, Reagan was pro-amnesty.
More like Tomato/engine block.
I have committed ideological suicide twice. It does not hurt and you feel much better.
Man, I hate to be the dog in the manger* but both these old dudes got the press-criticism inoculation with their other shots. The only positive note will be the pleasure of watching the critical press tear-up when they realize they aren’t peddling Kryptonite.
No, really the only thing to do right now is read the Dorothy Parker poem and try to be brave about it all. Which worked for me last night after listening to D and B back-to-back and extrapolating a little. Electoral suicide? Let’s worry about the real thing.
*proverbial phrase chosen in place of a vulgarity involving breakfast food. I’m giving up vulgarity. And not breakfast food.
Reagan is not pro-amnesty in 2016. Even granting your habitual point arguendo; that was then, this is now. The surrender I speak of is Congress’ to Obama. And “the only viable plan to reform entitlements” is a relative judgement, not a value statement. Even Paul Ryan’s most famous budget never balances. Electoral suicide vs actual suicide. At the time, I also thought Simpson-Mazzoli was a deal worth having. That was then, this is now.
You claimed the current GOP is anti-Reagan, did you not? I merely gave you the one issue where this is true.
Your claim of surrender is a relative judgment, not a value statement.
Ryan’s budget did balance in 10 years.
In my opinion, Mitch Daniels would have dropped out of the race in July due to severe lack of interest from voters. That is if he had bothered to get into the race in the first place. A man who does not run for office does not deserve to be lauded as an exemplary candidate. I am sure there are plenty of things for which Daniels is worthy of praise. Being interesting and running for president are not either one of those things, the first in my opinion and the second in absolute fact.
Not getting in the race is one of his many virtues. I agree that he would have attracted little support, but as an alternative to Republican Party suicide, he is as attractive as Katy Perry.
Does anybody here remember Mitch Daniel’s backstory and the reason he refused to run? He’s a great man and would be great in anyone’s cabinet or WH staff, but he’s not going to run now if he didn’t run then.
Yes, as it was when he ran in the 1970s as well. Today’s GOP would hate Reagan, but not because he was “too moderate”
Not true — don’t see how you get this. I’m not going down every rabbit hole, but use this as an example. When you say that a thing is the only viable thing out there, that is a relative endorsement. You imply that there are others, but that they are not viable. When the GOP Congress pre-emptively refuses to use the weapons they are given, and delivers everything Obama wants, while scolding conservatives about being greedy, that’s not relative. That’s a value statement.
You are just playing with words. You used to be better at it, though.
Some version perhaps.
People are voting for Trump and Sanders because two ideologies clashed with two overly proud families, the Clinton’s and the Bush’s… I’m real sorry 41 didn’t get re-electd. And it blows that the Supreme Court ruled before the votes were counted in Florida… even though it changed nothing… all that is too bad… but can we move on now?
It’s been the Hatfields and McCoys in politics since 92. And we just need to move on from this.
The Democrats did in a way with Obama. Now it’s Republicans turn. Jeb Bush can not be allowed the nomination. Because that feud will never end.
Cruz is far too ideological, to the point of completely ignoring the actual world we live in… the world where 25% may vote Socialist, and another 25% will vote Socialist with a slightly less scary name. This isn’t a time for alienating Democrats. There is too much at stake.
The only ways out of this are Trump…. not very satisfactory, but it’d break the feud. Or Rubio. Please, let it be Rubio!
Rubio needs all the help he can get. He must win, if this country is to ever move forward and leave the past behind. If the issues we all care about are to ever be more than clubs our politicians hit each other over the head with… we need Rubio.
That is absolutely false.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/11/us/politics/0812-ryan.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paul-ryan-budget-proposal-sparks-criticism-from-both-democrats-gop/2012/03/21/gIQA4yjTSS_story.html
http://www.cbpp.org/research/blog-post-ryan-plan-unlikely-to-balance-the-budget-for-decades
Now I grant you that all of this might be based on static scoring and not dynamic, but even Ryan himself said that it only could balance in ten years.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/paul-ryan-my-plan-can-balance-budget-10-years
You’ll just have to wait for the white smoke, folks, and hope the good Lord is guiding the cardinal-electors.
Oh, sorry, that’s the OTHER election that recently went poorly….
I know the gates of hell will never prevail against the mother Church. The USA? Not so much.
I was thinking about another Dorothy; Dorothy Thompson’s “Who Goes Nazi” essay in pondering the current candidates. Thanks for sharing the poem.
The evidence for this is …?
Quite simply by rejecting your assertion, the GOP Congress pre-emptively refuses to use the weapons they are given, and delivers everything Obama wants… Has Obama been given immigration reform? He certainly wants it. What about cap and trade? Card check? Assault weapons ban?
Yeah, she’s delusional in a major way. Cruz beats Jeb! in moderate New Hampshire, and she thinks Jeb!’s gonna pull a surprise in conservative South Carolina??
The only surprise Jeb! can pull in South Carolina would be if he withdrew after losing badly.
I hope you’re right. But I see Trump in the driver’s seat. Unless he implodes I think he will be the nominee.
Compared to Trump and his likely Democratic opponent, how bad could it be?
Fear not, Peter Robinson! Can the brokered convention Rubio now foresees do anything other than turn to Mitch?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_RUBIO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-11-03-46-36
While those things may anger you, that is not an answer to the question.
When you consider Trump’s position is not to simply enforce existing law but also encompasses these items, my response does answer the question of why Trump’s immigration position is not conservative.
If your definition of conservatism is simply to “enforce existing law”, you will continue to struggle with civil conversation among conservatives. That is an unprincipled, mechanistic “I vas only followink orders” justification and limit. That sort of “definition” of conservatism does not arose from and is not popular with conservatives.
David Brooks, maybe.